W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2000

RE: XML protocol comparisons

From: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:58:15 -0800
Message-ID: <80CB4C7E7DE1D311950600508BA5831FEF0993@neptune.commerceone.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

I took a quick look through your comparisons and thought it a great idea. As
I'm the author of IOTP and the editor of ebXML, here are a few suggestions.
Let me know what you think.

Firstly, it might be a good idea to include a couple of additional "facets"
*	security - rules on how data should be digitally signed to prove
authenticity and authorization of requested actions, and
*	reliability - how to recover from failed delivery of messages

IOTP does both of these and ebXML Transport Routing & Packaging will.

You might also want to think about discovery protocols that allow you
identify how two parties/servers/clients can determine how to successfuly
interoperat. ebXML will be doing this (it's a recently identified
requirement) and eCo (http://www.commercenet.com/eco) already does this to a
degree but more from a business/document perspective rather than protocol

On ebXML there are really four different threads that are relevent:

*	Transport Routing & Packaging - which is a messaging protocol (but
no business process)
*	Core Components -  which defines standard forms for payloads of
messages that are business documents
*	Business Process - which will define how business documents can be
used to support different business functions
*	Registry/Repository - which will describe how to discover
information about schemas, specifications etc

In my view the first one (TR&P) is the most relevent to this list.

I hope this helps. Get in touch if you have questions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 5:17 PM
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: XML protocol comparisons

I put together a comparison of a bunch of XML protocols, 

SOAP [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#SOAP]
ICE [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#ICE]
WDDX [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#WDDX]
BizTalk [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#BizTalk]
IOTP [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#IOTP]
TIP [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#TIP]
WfXML [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#WfXML]
ebXML [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#ebXML]
XMI [http://www.w3.org/2000/03/29-XML-protocol-matrix#XMI]

for everyone to discuss/dispute. It is said that the best way to get a
question answered on usenet is to post an incorrect answer. Persuant
to that, I have not done extensive readings of some of the protocol
papers during my characterizations, but at least they're all there in
a forum where we can compare apples and fruit baskets.

I'll be adding more dimensions and would like feedback on what people
wish to compare. Also, I'd like to have anchor-rich HTML versions of
the documents so I can point to specific parts of the spec as
supporting evidence.


Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 00:59:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:09 UTC